New Probe Rack

[[Da...]]

6 Position Probe Rack

Check these videos out

https://youtu.be/-dmzy51ubjg
https://youtu.be/4iunLKupYlM

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Probe-Multi-Ho ... OSwJjten6Y~

Capture.JPG

[[SH...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

New rack from Zeiss??
Red colour pad is for calibration of rack??
Only for xxt??

[[Da...]]

It looks that way.
Still use the XXT probe rack cal?

[[Er...]]

A 2800$ investment that Zeiss can (and probably will) make useless.
It takes four lines of code to make that holder unusable.

Just have that in mind so you dont end up getting fired by pissing off management....

[[Da...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

I don't understand any of what you just said?

[[Da...]]

The probe rack is calibrated just like the Zeiss probe rack just 2 Sets of 3 XXT racks
If I am understanding the other Posts

[[Er...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

You don't need to understand it. It doesn't get less true because of that.

Just answer these questions, and maybe you will see where Im going...

Can you put two of Zeiss XXT holders that close ontop of each other while still being able to change probes?

Does this make sence?

( a x**2 - b x**2 ) + ( a y**2 * b y**2 ) + ( a z**2 * b z**2 ) sqrt < X
	ifTrue: [^'We dont support this rack']
	ifFalse: [^self].

Just trying to highlight issues you may or may not encounter the next time you update Calypso. Don't shoot the messenger.. 🙂

[[Da...]]

Does this make sence?

( a x**2 - b x**2 ) + ( a y**2 * b y**2 ) + ( a z**2 * b z**2 ) sqrt < X
	ifTrue: [^'We dont support this rack']
	ifFalse: [^self].

That Formula even makes less sense!!!!

Are you talking about what Zeiss could do? Then yes they can write a formula. Is it something that Zeiss would do highly unlikely.
But that being said,

Lets break down the cost
Zeiss 2 XXT probe racks 2 x $1628 plus Mini rack 1063.00 Total $4319.00
Vs 2800 for 4 probe rack but cut down to 2 probes rack by supposed formula

Manager High Five!!! you saved $1519 dollars.
or
No supposed formula you saved $4775.00 Bigger High Five.

Thanks
Danny

Capture.PNG

[[Er...]]

Sorry, I just assumed you where familar with condition semantics regardless of language. And by judging by your response, clearly not.
It's not a formula, nor have anything to do with PCM, I can't even figure why you brought that up. And I don't understand what you "code" is trying to show. what are your two inquireList's supposed to do? Maybe you should take a class in PCM.

It's actually the source code of a potential method in the same language Calypso is written in. That could make that rack inoperable. Just change "a" and "b" to the actual object of the location point of the racks. And set X to value slightly lower then what is possible to achieve with the XXT holders.

...Is it something that Zeiss would do highly unlikely. - Mmm they just love the loss of cash flow, what do you think the real purpouse of the id-chip plates are?

But as I said, it's just a heads up. Go ahead and buy 'em. Just tought that I sould say that one day, (most likely) they might not work anymore.

[[Da...]]

...Is it something that Zeiss would do highly unlikely. - Mmm they just love the loss of cash flow, what do you think the real purpouse of the id-chip plates are?

Are you really sure you know what you are talking about?
Do you know what the Chip ID is? Do you know what makes the ID number?
The ID is a Bosch ID chip that Qmark already has on there probes. And Zeiss was directing all probe sells to Qmark last month.
So the answer is highly unlikely.

[[Er...]]

Yes Im really sure what Im talking about. And the manufacturer of the chip is yet one other totally useless point and has nothing to do with the main purpouse.
Yes Zeiss is permitting a lot of people due to the virus. And right now they have capabillity issues here and there. And yes, Its now possible to get "express" deliveries in the US since probes now also is made there. But that isn't the same as its Qmark now have taken shares from Zeiss. More like Zeiss let them manufacturer stuff on license, as Zeiss branded.
Did Zeiss equip the sensors with the chip readers because Qmark had chips in their plates? Is that what you try to say, or? I dont understand what you problem is.

But it still has nothing to do with the point Im trying to make. Its not that I wish for them to make life harder on custom stuff. I just know they do it, as long as they leagally can without violating commercial laws. The vast majority of companies does that.

[[Da...]]

It works and it works great.
No shaking unlike Zeiss Racks.

[[Er...]]

I dont doubt the function, or question the quality. Also not clanking down on the idéa. I just have an open mind about the compabillity with future releases of Calypso.

Thats it.

(And I think it overpriced. But pretty much all 3d-printed plastic parts the people sell is unmotivated expensive. Cheaper then their counter part, sure. But relative to what it acually is.. Expensive.)

[[Da...]]

I call BS on everything Eric Moberg! You tried using the pythagorean theorem "badly". You didn't know that ID chip is a common off the shelf chip made by Bosch. I don't thing you are as smart as you want everyone to think you are. No point of answer I have blocked you.

P.S. your formula is missing a set of ().

Thanks
Danny

[[Er...]]

Good you blocked me, then the rest of us can laugh at you, behind your back.

Here is a snippet from a book about squeak. (A smalltalk "dialect")
Im one of those still reading actual books instead of getting my facts twisted by wannabee programmers poorly code found among Google results..

As you can see, there is no need for any brackes. The message sqrt is sent to the object 15 wich in turn respons with the result. I could add it, I can add 16 of them if I wish to, but I dont need to.
It might be confusing, because you sort of read it backwards. Im not shy to admit when Im wrong. But I never back when Im correct.

Smalltalk is a quite different language, and you clearly dont understand programming at all, sorry I tried. Maybe if you listen a little, you might learn a thing or two. (Like using proper indentation in your code.) It really looks like it was written by a retard. Instead of acting as an poor excuse of a human waste of space.

[[Cl...]]

Gentlemen, relax 🙂

[[Da...]]

Your formula should be this
((ax^2-bx^2)+(ay^2-by^2)+(az^2-az^2))sqrt root)<(Value)

Is what I was thinking you where trying to do.

Capture.JPG

[[Er...]]

No actually not, I didn't care about the vaules, +, - or *. The math is not the question. More the "way" of making a method.

But yes, maybe that was a poor choise to not make it a pythagorean. I simplt don't like posting finished, working code. Because most peaple only copy it, but never understand it. And that is't helpful.

And is this proof enough?

[[Da...]]

ok
😕

[[Da...]]

😃

[[Da...]]

I'm glad we cleared that up.
😮 😱 😕

That's close to the Y axis of my CMM. How about yours???
your probe racks need to be 6,000,000 mm apart.

Capture.JPG

[[Er...]]

Mmmmhumm, Are you trying to tell me that the order of precedence is the same in Smalltalk as in excel? Well, it isnt.

Here are two simple binary expressions.
Excel:
Smalltalk:
Not all languages treat unary and binary as your calculator.

But I agree, my first example was bad. I was trying to get you to understand. And you did'nt. And there is no such thing as a stupid student. Only bad teachers. I should absolutely have made a better example. And since you clearly are so brilliant. I wrote it slightly under your level of competence. And everything will be just fine now.

Just have this in mind:
1) I have removed all bindings.
2) 40 could be 30, or what ever it needs to be.
3) Yes, you can still use the custom rack if you find a way to have an approach from Z.
4) This can be destilled a couple of lines for sure. But I tried to make it crystal clear so that other regular intelligent people also have a chance to understand.
5) The methods return value will not be a string, (We dont supp...) It will of cource terminate execution instead.
6) There might be typos, but it did not raise an exeption while compiling.
7) Yes, the 2:nd BC should be limited to the locals from the first, making sure no crosscomparisions occure. But you get what you pay, as they say.
8) I know this is inefficent, it's better to create separate instances. But I asume you would not understand if not posted as a chunk. Since that also invoke xml. Correct me if I'm wrong...
9) Its written in a simulation environment, no holder actual location made any sense.

self getSensorType = 'XXT' ifFalse:[^self]

v1 := self probeChangePlanes at: 1.
v1 := v1 identifier copyFrom: 8 to: 8.
v1 = 'Y'
	ifTrue:[
		first := (self probeChangerPoints at: 1) y.
		vertical := (self probeChangerPoints at: 1) z.
		(self probeChangerPoints) size > 1 ifTrue: [
			2 to: (self probeChangerPoints) size do: [:a | vertical - ((self probeChangerPoints at: a) z ) ~~ 0 ifTrue:[
				2 to: (self probeChangerPoints) size do: [:b | first - ((self probeChangerPoints at: b) y ) < 40 ifTrue:[^'We dont support this rack']]]]].
	ifFalse:[
		first := (self probeChangerPoints at: 1) x.
		vertical := (self probeChangerPoints at: 1) z.
		(self probeChangerPoints) size > 1 ifTrue: [
			2 to: (self probeChangerPoints) size do: [:a | vertical - ((self probeChangerPoints at: a) z ) ~~ 0 ifTrue:[
				2 to: (self probeChangerPoints) size do: [:b | first - ((self probeChangerPoints at: b) x ) < 40 ifTrue:[^'We dont support this rack']]]]].

Have I made my point of view clear enough, or do you still not understand?

[[Da...]]

That was the point the whole time your formula was bad.
You didn't get that?

[[Da...]]

I think most people are done with this conversation. You have made you point it could be blocked by Zeiss.

End of story.

[[Er...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

I tried show a conditional statement. Since he didn't understand any of what I said, Not calc the hyp, I could have used "a | c", "a =~ c" or "'Gargamel hates smurfs' <> true" I just punched the keyboard. Since the math is irrelevant. And it might not have been the best of choise. But my question, "does this make sense" whas to the logic of the function. Not the math. The conditions logic is the same, regardless of operators. But this intentional misunderstanding just show lack of knowlage at some areas.

Then I tried to say the math isn't relevant. And I also tried to show the order of precedence. Since you both put so much weight on brackets. You even put brackets at your "Value"... Whats that about?

You guys might be measuring heros, and good at what you are doing. But don't put "programmer" on you resumes.

Don't know why Danny H even wrote something at all. He didn't contribute to any of value for any one. Except my own amusement 🙂

But my whole point was to make people aware and think twice before buying stuff like this, because I guess you don't offer money back to your customers one day when they might stop working?